-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
U.S. Intel: Iran Planning Nuclear Strike on U.S.?
- Thread starter Adam_MA
- Start date
im very interested on what type of magic Irans going to use to break the laws of physics and make a SCUD missile, with a max range of about 700km (the Shahab-3 is about 2,100km) travel 11,200km to America, with the nuclear bomb they havent even developed yet.
not to mention the SCUD platform nor the Shahab-3 could never even carry a large enough weapon to make a effective EMP attack.
kill kill kill says the media.
not to mention the SCUD platform nor the Shahab-3 could never even carry a large enough weapon to make a effective EMP attack.
kill kill kill says the media.
Last edited:
Well.....you always want to be prepared.....lol....
But as I pointed out in another thread it's all about the liberal math. To them it doesn't matter how many miles we are from Iran and how many miles their missles can fly, its about the fact that they tested missles and they actually flew so they (the liberal math media) automatically assume they can reach US soil.
icyclefar
NES Member
Why do you have to go and ruin things with the facts.
Grendel
Banned
I think they were proposing that Iran would launch it from a ship near our coastlines...Plausible... but I also imagine Iran knows we can shoot down Scuds and ships that can carry them.
Then all we need to do is let the attack dog off the chain. Israel would love to own the entirety of the Middle East.
Then all we need to do is let the attack dog off the chain. Israel would love to own the entirety of the Middle East.
I know, right? Jesus, Dench; get a hobby or something
With that said, I'm still in agreement with the "be prepared" idealogy; maybe they know things we don't. I'm not against being prepared, but all I see this leading to is another war we don't want to be in (nor should be in).
Why does the media love fear mongering so much?
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
i think america is more then prepared to do all it can in a situation were a enemy country is threatening to use a ICBM (which iran does not poses).
theres basically 2 things you can do;
1. bend over and kiss your ass goodbye if your in the strike area of the ICBMs MIRVs
2. return the favor with your own nuclear weapons.
theres not a terribly large amount of things you can do to stop it short of a preemptive strike, and weve all seen how many WMDs we found in Iraq when we invaded.
the article wasnt clear on how it was launched in the caspian sea. for all we know it was launched on a platform and used there becuase of the lower risk of damage to the surrounding area incase of a accident. or it could of been launched from a boat. either way its not a big concern, considering iran does not poses a single ship in its navy that could reach the US without drawing massive suspicion to its self. also, Iran does not have the obligation to explain anything it does in regards to its missile tests to outsiders.
Last edited:
The problem is that if Israel gets involved - the US will be involved too whether we want to be or not.
Think about it - if the Israeli Air Force bombs Iran the only way they are getting there is to fly across either Saudi Arabia - or Iraq. Since the US has the only military air presence in Iraq - we are the defacto Iraqi air force. We also pretty much control the Persian Gulf. So either way - the US will know that there is a large strike force of Israeli planes flying towards Iran. If they cross over Iraqi air space - and we let them, then we have facilitated the attack.
Some people will argue otherwise - but anybody who thinks this should look at the behavior of neutral countries during WW2. When German - or Allied planes ventured in Swiss air space - they were escorted to a Swiss air base - or they were SHOT DOWN. The same happened with other neutral countries. This is because said planes were invading sovereign air space. Israeli planes over Iraq - or Saudi Arabia, would be doing the same.
As far as a Israeli - Iranian conflict goes, Iraq is a neutral country. And the US is their air force, and the most powerful military in the world to boot. So if Israeli planes fly across Iraq - we are allied with the attack whether we want to be or not. And Iran has already said that if Israel attacks Iran - they will consider it an attack by the US.
As far as people saying that Iran can attack the US with missiles - they need to pop their heads out of their butts. Even the enhanced missiles that Iran has are only estimated to be able to reach Israel and some of the lower parts of Europe - Iran does not have ballistic missiles that have anywhere near the range needed to reach the US. They could of course put them on a ship - and launch off of our coast. But I don't believe they would ever do that (because it would be suicide) until AFTER WE ATTACKED THEM FIRST.
Paranoia is rampant in this country. And it is what is going to destroy this country. People need to pull their heads out of the asses and look at reality.
Israel got their butts handed to them by Hezbollah last year in Lebanon. If they truly want to "own" the rest of the Middle East then they are the kind of stupid allies we really don't need.
They have had problems with the Palestinians for years - thinking that Israel can somehow control the Mideast is not based on reality any more than thinking that Iran has a death wish and will attack the US with nuclear weapons before we attack them first.
theres one thing thats for sure in middle east politics, and thats no one has the ability to control israel. israel as time after time done whatever it wants, whenever it wants. its a matter of time with the way things are going when israel will attack iran.
if israel attacks iran first, i doubt it will be a nuclear strike. that would make a giant mess, and israel knows it.
if israel attacks iran first, i doubt it will be a nuclear strike. that would make a giant mess, and israel knows it.
As far as defending themselves I believe Israel - as should any country, has the right to do that. However given the politics , geography, and war situation currently going on over there - an attack by Israel will inevitably involve the US - except in one case: Israeli planes fly over Iraq - and we shoot them down (anybody want to bet on the likelihood that would actually happen?).
If that scenario was to happen the US would have declared itself to be a neutral country in any Iranian - Israeli conflict by defending Iraqi airspace from an invasion. Anything less than that - and we are involved.
I don't believe what I laid out above will happen - because I believe that the powers that be here in the US - WANT this country at war with Iran. They are just looking for the excuse - and either as a pre-planned event, or by the simple math of the whole situation - they are looking for Israel to give them that excuse.
If we go to war with Iran be prepared for oil prices to go thru the roof - and I will not go near any big city for the duration and until things are well settled down unless I bring my lead suit.
If that scenario was to happen the US would have declared itself to be a neutral country in any Iranian - Israeli conflict by defending Iraqi airspace from an invasion. Anything less than that - and we are involved.
I don't believe what I laid out above will happen - because I believe that the powers that be here in the US - WANT this country at war with Iran. They are just looking for the excuse - and either as a pre-planned event, or by the simple math of the whole situation - they are looking for Israel to give them that excuse.
If we go to war with Iran be prepared for oil prices to go thru the roof - and I will not go near any big city for the duration and until things are well settled down unless I bring my lead suit.
+1
As usual, the press gets it horribly wrong. It won't surprise me if Iran eventually builds a nuclear bomb. It is harder to make one small enough to ride on to of a missile. And Iran's missile technology isn't good enough yet to threaten the US.
I think our administration needs to make it perfectly clear that if there is any unprovoked attack on any American ally by Iran, we will respond harshly. I don't mean ground troops or toppling the Iranian gov. I mean carpet bombing the country and making it so you can't tell that there used to be a human population within the borders. Make the Iran leaders realize they are responsible for the fate of their citizens, and their actions will have dire consequences should they choose the path of violence.
Iran's been trying to provoke the U.S. for years now (long range missile tests, "charging" at U.S. Naval ships in the area etc). Let's make sure they know they have our attention, and if the cause any problems it will be the last thing they do. Any Iranian ships heading toward America or American interests will result in a bunch of dead Iranian sailors.
As it is right now, Iran cannot hit the continental U.S. with a missile attack. They can hit some of our allies, particularly in Europe the mid-east and Asia. But, to do that would drag them into a global conflict they do not want to be in. If they fire on someone like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Greece (all within their missile range) do they think the U.S. is going to be the only nation to respond? If they fire on Israel, I see half a dozen nuclear missiles heading in the opposite direction, within 10 minutes of the initial attack.
Is Iran a threat? Yes. How big of a threat is up for debate, but their imminent threat to the U.S. is minimal.
Iran's been trying to provoke the U.S. for years now (long range missile tests, "charging" at U.S. Naval ships in the area etc). Let's make sure they know they have our attention, and if the cause any problems it will be the last thing they do. Any Iranian ships heading toward America or American interests will result in a bunch of dead Iranian sailors.
As it is right now, Iran cannot hit the continental U.S. with a missile attack. They can hit some of our allies, particularly in Europe the mid-east and Asia. But, to do that would drag them into a global conflict they do not want to be in. If they fire on someone like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Greece (all within their missile range) do they think the U.S. is going to be the only nation to respond? If they fire on Israel, I see half a dozen nuclear missiles heading in the opposite direction, within 10 minutes of the initial attack.
Is Iran a threat? Yes. How big of a threat is up for debate, but their imminent threat to the U.S. is minimal.
any country in the world knows that if you attack the US directly then you will be attacked back. thats obvious. if you think the us wil carpet bomb iran, for any reason then your wrong. attacking civilian populations are a thing of the past, for good reason.
if you think that irans trying to trick us into a war by messing with our navy then you know little to nothing about the navies history with the soviet union. ships frequently got into extremely dangerous situations with each other due to cutting into each others lanes of travel on purpose. american and soviet submarines have had a lot of under water collisions while messing around with each other, and this has lead to submarines being sunk, with entire crews and nuclear missiles going with them to the bottom.
the russians to this day fly strategic nuclear bombers very close harassing US carrier battle groups and NATOs airspace.
breaking balls is nothing new. iran can talk all the shit in the world, at the end their still a 3rd world country begging for attention.
Our troops there are certainly within striking distance. I read the article earlier, so I'm going from memory, but did it limit the potential attack to the Continental US or did it say the US in general, that could be anywhere (Iraq.)
From:
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2008/07/plain_facts_abo.php
So the only argument left for anybody who thinks we - or Israel, should attack Iran in a pre-emptory strike is that they (Iran) are somehow insane enough to attack us first with nuclear weapons.
Our very own National Intelligence Estimate has come out and said that Iran does NOT have nuclear weapons.
Even the current biggest lunatics on the planet - the North Koreans, have not made a move to attack the US with nuclear weapons, and North Korea actually has demonstrated the capability of producing nukes.
None of these facts of course will stop the hysteria from a good many people who seem to think the Iranians have the capability of bombing the US back into the stone age.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 9,000
- Likes
- 5,476
Why on earth would they need a missile to deliver a nuclear bomb? Just
putting it into the hold of a freighter or a scrap iron barge, and docking in lower manhattan would be cheaper, more reliable, less trackable, and more deniable.
Or ship it Fed-Ex.
namedpipes
NES Member
I can only attribute this to a book by Leo Frankowski, but it has sufficient merit to argue over beer. Then again, maybe he boosted it from some ancient philosopher.
In hot, arid regions, your neighbor is your enemy. You compete with him for scarce resources like water or food. Over hundreds or thousands of years your culture evolves into a combative one based on taking or keeping resources by force.
In cold regions with water, your neighbor is your friend. Another hand to help bring in the crop, lend a chicken or just to huddle with for body heat on a cold winter night. Over hundreds or thousands of years your culture evolves into a cooperative one based on freindship and trade.
He doesn't really comment on moderate or tropical climates, although those grass hula skirts could make that discussion much more interesting. Over beer.
Like I said, it was just a book (a runaway trilogy about a 20th century mechanical engineer dropped in 13th century Poland - move over, Sam Clemens) but the argument has a certain amount of believability to me.
In hot, arid regions, your neighbor is your enemy. You compete with him for scarce resources like water or food. Over hundreds or thousands of years your culture evolves into a combative one based on taking or keeping resources by force.
In cold regions with water, your neighbor is your friend. Another hand to help bring in the crop, lend a chicken or just to huddle with for body heat on a cold winter night. Over hundreds or thousands of years your culture evolves into a cooperative one based on freindship and trade.
He doesn't really comment on moderate or tropical climates, although those grass hula skirts could make that discussion much more interesting. Over beer.
Like I said, it was just a book (a runaway trilogy about a 20th century mechanical engineer dropped in 13th century Poland - move over, Sam Clemens) but the argument has a certain amount of believability to me.
The original post read:
As was pointed out, 1) Iran does not have missiles with enough range to hit the US, 2) Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.
+1 for all who made two important points: 1. Iran does not have a missile capable of hitting US territories (unless they do a VERY good job of hiding it in a ship that can launch it). 2. Iran has no atomic weapon.
Now, make note that despite having some of the best intelligence operators in the world, opposition forces have been known to pull one over on us once in a while. Does that mean that Iran has a nuke or a plausible air born delivery system? Probably not, but dollars to doughnuts their working on it and it's just a matter of time. If you don't think it's possible read "The bomb in my garden" by Mahdi Obeidi and Kurt Pitzer.
As far as target goes, we're talking about a country whose leader has openly admitted to the desire to wipe Israel off the map (genocide). So, there's intent. Israel is the target of opportunity just due to geographic convenience. However, Israeli Intelligence capabilities are definitely far better than ours in the region and would probably pick up on a nuclear threat long before it's delivery stage. They would utilize conventional means to disrupt it. All we would get as Joe Public is that "the Israelis conducted a small scale surgical strike on certain facilities that were perceived as a threat" (ie cover up).
Bad scenario, Iran develops a nuke, pops it off in Israel and nuclear retaliation from Israel and allies results in Iran becoming a glass parking lot.
Worse scenario, Hezbollah smuggles a nuke on a ship to the US and pops it off anywhere here. 24 hours later when we point the finger, Iran probably becomes a glass parking lot. At the very least, a long and painful conventional war ensues with extreme prejudice.
Probable scenario, Iran keeps saber rattling to disrupt US efforts to stabilize the Middle East, their covert operations to fund and facilitate actions in Iraq and elsewhere continue.
Either way, they know they're out gunned regardless of who they attack. It's just a matter of how badly they want to meet 72 virgins.
2 cents![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
Now, make note that despite having some of the best intelligence operators in the world, opposition forces have been known to pull one over on us once in a while. Does that mean that Iran has a nuke or a plausible air born delivery system? Probably not, but dollars to doughnuts their working on it and it's just a matter of time. If you don't think it's possible read "The bomb in my garden" by Mahdi Obeidi and Kurt Pitzer.
As far as target goes, we're talking about a country whose leader has openly admitted to the desire to wipe Israel off the map (genocide). So, there's intent. Israel is the target of opportunity just due to geographic convenience. However, Israeli Intelligence capabilities are definitely far better than ours in the region and would probably pick up on a nuclear threat long before it's delivery stage. They would utilize conventional means to disrupt it. All we would get as Joe Public is that "the Israelis conducted a small scale surgical strike on certain facilities that were perceived as a threat" (ie cover up).
Bad scenario, Iran develops a nuke, pops it off in Israel and nuclear retaliation from Israel and allies results in Iran becoming a glass parking lot.
Worse scenario, Hezbollah smuggles a nuke on a ship to the US and pops it off anywhere here. 24 hours later when we point the finger, Iran probably becomes a glass parking lot. At the very least, a long and painful conventional war ensues with extreme prejudice.
Probable scenario, Iran keeps saber rattling to disrupt US efforts to stabilize the Middle East, their covert operations to fund and facilitate actions in Iraq and elsewhere continue.
Either way, they know they're out gunned regardless of who they attack. It's just a matter of how badly they want to meet 72 virgins.
2 cents
+1 for all who made two important points: 1. Iran does not have a missile capable of hitting US territories (unless they do a VERY good job of hiding it in a ship that can launch it). 2. Iran has no atomic weapon.
Now, make note that despite having some of the best intelligence operators in the world, opposition forces have been known to pull one over on us once in a while. Does that mean that Iran has a nuke or a plausible air born delivery system? Probably not, but dollars to doughnuts their working on it and it's just a matter of time. If you don't think it's possible read "The bomb in my garden" by Mahdi Obeidi and Kurt Pitzer.
As far as target goes, we're talking about a country whose leader has openly admitted to the desire to wipe Israel off the map (genocide). So, there's intent. Israel is the target of opportunity just due to geographic convenience. However, Israeli Intelligence capabilities are definitely far better than ours in the region and would probably pick up on a nuclear threat long before it's delivery stage. They would utilize conventional means to disrupt it. All we would get as Joe Public is that "the Israelis conducted a small scale surgical strike on certain facilities that were perceived as a threat" (ie cover up).
Bad scenario, Iran develops a nuke, pops it off in Israel and nuclear retaliation from Israel and allies results in Iran becoming a glass parking lot.
Worse scenario, Hezbollah smuggles a nuke on a ship to the US and pops it off anywhere here. 24 hours later when we point the finger, Iran probably becomes a glass parking lot. At the very least, a long and painful conventional war ensues with extreme prejudice.
Probable scenario, Iran keeps saber rattling to disrupt US efforts to stabilize the Middle East, their covert operations to fund and facilitate actions in Iraq and elsewhere continue.
Either way, they know they're out gunned regardless of who they attack. It's just a matter of how badly they want to meet 72 virgins.
2 cents
Resorting to the argument that "something might happen" is the same excuse used by liberals the world over and can be used to justify any sort of behavior. "Pre-emptive" warfare is an excuse plain and simple.
As Dench has pointed out - the US has more than ample means of responding to any attack on the US - pre-emptive is morally wrong and will remain so what ever the excuse of the day may be.
Israel is not the 51st US state.
Israel and the US have NO MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY.
Any urge to defend Israel from attack by using US forces is nothing more than the desire by certain ideological and political forces within the US (and Israel) - to get around the fact that there is no treaty between the two countries pledging to defend each other.
Why would the US need help from Israel to defend itself? It doesn't - therefore the possibility of "mutual defense treaty" is a joke - any possibility of treaty is nothing more than commitment by the US to defend Israel, not the other way around.
In some sort of John Clancy type scenario Iran might be able to get off one - or maybe two nuclear weapons on US soil. If in the unlikely chance this was to happen - what would they be blowing up? Cities. Cities are full of liberals - would this really be such a bad thing? (joking).
Any nuclear attack on US soil would be immediately reduced to a very short list of possible suspects - and probably immediately followed by an even shorter list of countries being reduced to glass.
So do you really think the Iranians are absolutely and completely suicidal? That is what anybody who says that Iran would try to nuke the US is. This makes no sense.
Would a group like Al Quaeda try something like nuking a US city? Probably - but they would NOT be getting a nuke from Iran. Iran and much of the Arab world are enemies - not friends. Anybody who thinks otherwise hasn't been bothering to read their history. And if Al Quaeda got a bomb somehow - it would probably come from Pakistan - highly unlikely it would come from Iran.
For the most part, I concur.
Again, this makes sense, and I fully believe that Israel and the US are completely capable of defending themselves. However, I also believe that Israel’s allies, in the event of a MAJOR conflict, would provide large amounts of logistic and monetary support (overt and covert) and probably special operations forces (overt and covert) to assist them if requested.
If the shoe were on the other foot and everything went to hell, I fully believe that Israel would provide a strategic and tactical staging position for US forces. There is a reason that we've been playing nice with them and giving them bargain basement prices on US hardware. We like having a diplomatic (strategic) presence in the Middle East.
Not to compare apples to oranges, but we didn't have a mutual defense treaty with Kuwait either.
Again, I concur fully:
As a side note (and slight thread hijack), I don't want my post to indicate that I am a huge Israel supporter. I believe that they should have the right to coexist peacefully where they are. By no means do I think that we should let Israel drag us into further conflict in the Middle East. If anything I think we should reduce our presence there over time. Everyone has their opinion and that's fine. These are just my 2 cents on the matter and I hope that people can engage in spirited non hostile debate where all opinions are respected.
![[cheers]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/018.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
The average Iranian? Based on my experience with Iranian colleagues, no. The Iranian political leadership? Frankly, I dunno. They are clearly wackos and I think some of them are, in fact, willing to die for their dogma.
Twigg
NES Member
My $0.02
Not particularly true here.
Exactly.
1. Yes, the Iranians are absolutely and completely suicidal. Ahmadinejad is one of the revolutionaries who took over our embassy in November of '79.
I strongly believe this wacko would marytr his entire country in a heartbeat to rid his world of America and Israel.
2. The much more likely scenario. There are already enough Al-Quedia in the country for a fifth collum attack.
Not particularly true here.
Exactly.
1. Yes, the Iranians are absolutely and completely suicidal. Ahmadinejad is one of the revolutionaries who took over our embassy in November of '79.
I strongly believe this wacko would marytr his entire country in a heartbeat to rid his world of America and Israel.
2. The much more likely scenario. There are already enough Al-Quedia in the country for a fifth collum attack.
In other news, zombies are attacking Canada.
Seriously though, Iran having any kind of nuclear capabilities? Zero to none and my bet is on none. Dirty bomb? Possibly, I doubt it's too hard to put some kind of radioactive material around a conventional warhead to spread it around. But I'm no scientist so I could be wrong.
While the Iranian gov't is pretty much batshit crazy (after having read some of the statements they have made to the world, "We will destroy all your military bases, blockade oil shipping routes, etc.") I just don't see them making any kind of attack (overtly) against Israel or the U.S. The U.N may be a bunch of girlie men, but does anyone think it'd be too long before Iran takes it up the rear end should they attack?
Seriously though, Iran having any kind of nuclear capabilities? Zero to none and my bet is on none. Dirty bomb? Possibly, I doubt it's too hard to put some kind of radioactive material around a conventional warhead to spread it around. But I'm no scientist so I could be wrong.
While the Iranian gov't is pretty much batshit crazy (after having read some of the statements they have made to the world, "We will destroy all your military bases, blockade oil shipping routes, etc.") I just don't see them making any kind of attack (overtly) against Israel or the U.S. The U.N may be a bunch of girlie men, but does anyone think it'd be too long before Iran takes it up the rear end should they attack?
Similar threads
